NYT Scaling Back Editorial Page

This post was originally published on this site

The New York Times is, unsurprisingly, one of the more profitable news outlets in the world. 

Unlike most of its competitors, it has adapted extremely well to the digital landscape, increasing its subscriber base, expanding into non-news-related businesses, and establishing even greater brand recognition and loyalty in its readership. 

Whatever else you can say about their products, they are very very good at the business. 

Much of that success is due to their non-news products such as their Cooking site (I subscribe because I like to cook), The Wirecutter product review site (I go there all the time), The Athletic (I am fat, lazy, and a casual sports viewer so I have never been there), and games such as Wordle, which Ed seems to play all the time. 

News may be their flagship product, but the diversification of the business is their secret sauce. As competitors like the Washington Post shed readers, The New York Times is stronger than ever. It has no debt, and still spins off cash. 

Kudos to the business guys. Content production is a tough business, and while the Times is not exactly Facebook in reach or profitability, it does OK. 

But that doesn’t make it immune to changing trends. In fact, its success is based on adapting to changing trends. And that means chopping out the deadwood. 

The New York Times is reshuffling its operations at the opinion section — reducing the frequency of its editorials while shrinking its roster of editorial board writers, according to a report.

The Gray Lady has reportedly offered several of its editorial board members new jobs within the opinion section or buyout packages if they choose to leave the company.

Mara Gay (who is frequently seen on left-leaning news channel MSNBC), Brent Staples, Jesse Wegman and Farah Stockman are editorial board members who were given the option of accepting a buyout, the news site Semafor reported on Monday.

“Publishing fewer, higher-quality editorials, the thesis goes, will lead to more audience attention,” according to the Semafor report.

I don’t know about you, but the only one of these people I have heard of is Mara Gay, and that is because she is only good at one thing: spouting complete nonsense on TV. Nobody links to her opinion pieces, nobody has once cared about what any of these people say on the editorial page, and I think we can be pretty sure that the reason for hiring 3 out of the four writers was DEI considerations. 

Look at the reason for the Times’ move: “Publishing fewer, higher-quality editorials, the thesis goes, will lead to more audience attention.” In other words, these writers sucked, but until DEI lost its luster they feared kicking them off the highly prestigious Opinion Page because, well, race and gender were more important that quality. 

“Reader engagement” is another word for eyeballs and buzz, the lifeblood of any internet content business. When nobody cares what you write or produce, it is worse than wasted effort–it is an anchor on your business. 

The Times is on a winning streak, financially speaking. Content production on the internet has been devastating to smaller or lower quality outlets because the market is international. Nobody has a monopoly in their local market anymore, at least not one that people are willing to pay enough for to sustain the business. 

Whatever you think of the Time’s news and opinion content, there IS a huge market for it and they are stealing business from others, and employing people who damage the brand is stupid. 

The implosion of DEI has given the Times a bit of breathing room to clear the deadwood. 

As much as I hate to say it, this was yet another smart business move by the Times. They may be propagandists, but they are good at their business.